Loveland & Estes Park Auto Co. v. Parks

Colorado Court of Appeals

Loveland & Estes Park Auto Co. v. Parks

27 Colo. App. 571

CourtColorado Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 15, 1914

DocketNo. 4061

StatusPublished

This text of 27 Colo. App. 571 (Loveland & Estes Park Auto Co. v. Parks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Colorado Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Loveland & Estes Park Auto Co. v. Parks, 27 Colo. App. 571 (Colo. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam.

Action by defendant in error against plaintiff in error to recover for damages growing out of injuries to a mule belonging to defendant in error, which injuries were occasioned by the plaintiff in error running upon the mule with an-automobile truck. The question of the negligence of the plaintiff in error and the contributory negligence of the defendant in error were fairly submitted to the jury, which found, on both questions, in favor of the defendant in error. The evidence, covering almost 600 folios, has been condensed into 5 pages of the printed abstract, thus necessitating an examination of the original bill of exceptions. We are satisfied from such examination that the evidence is amply sufficient to warrant the verdiet of the jury; hence the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per curiam.

Action by defendant in error against plaintiff in error to recover for damages growing out of injuries to a mule belonging to defendant in error, which injuries were occasioned by the plaintiff in error running upon the mule with an-automobile truck. The question of the negligence of the plaintiff in error and the contributory negligence of the defendant in error were fairly submitted to the jury, which found, on both questions, in favor of the defendant in error. The evidence, covering almost 600 folios, has been condensed into 5 pages of the printed abstract, thus necessitating an examination of the original bill of exceptions. We are satisfied from such examination that the evidence is amply sufficient to warrant the verdiet of the jury; hence the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Colo. App. 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loveland-estes-park-auto-co-v-parks-coloctapp-1914.